(0:00 - 1:09) John Carpay is the founder and president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. The JCCF, more than any other civil liberties organization, has fought the government overreach and corruption that violated our rights during the COVID plandemic. Now, John has authored his first book, Corrupted by Fear, which will be available on Amazon on January 15th. In the book, John draws from history, particularly Nazi Germany, and demonstrates the parallels with civil compliance with the lockdowns and other violations of our constitutional rights. He also points out many cases where the courts failed us and took the government's position on the principle of judicial notice, an assumption in this case that the government's claims were scientifically accurate, even going so far as to completely ignore the testimony of expert witnesses, such as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration. This is the same Dr. Bhattacharya who President-elect Trump has said he will appoint as the new head of the NIH, the National Institute of Health. (1:10 - 1:34) John joined me in the studio this past week to discuss not only history, our societal breakdown which led to the violation of our rights and the willing compliance of many Canadians, but also how we prevent this from happening again. John, it's a real pleasure to have you back in the studio. Good to see you. (1:35 - 1:55) And it's a special pleasure because this is your very first book that you've written, Corrupted by Fear, and I've got to say I love the title, simply because there are so many layers of meaning in it. So let's start with that, fear of what? Because certainly there were people who were afraid of the virus, yes. But there was people who were afraid of a lot of other things than that, and that's what caused a lot of the problems. (1:56 - 2:23) Well, I think the fear of the virus through the nonstop media, in a context where most people assume a little bit naively that the media are speaking the truth, because, you know, you're a good person, I'm a good person. It's hard to conceive of people that are just pumping out false information to manipulate us. That sounds very far-fetched. (2:23 - 2:29) It sounds like a conspiracy theory. While telling everybody that the people who are actually telling the truth are giving them misinformation. Yeah. (2:30 - 3:14) So I think the judges fell victim to the same fear-mongering that I would say the majority of Canadians felt afraid. And so, you know, we had the media talking about high numbers of COVID deaths, which of course was debunked in the justice center's court cases, that the World Health Organization changed the cause of death classification in April of 2020. So pre-2020, if you were terminally ill, dying of cancer in a hospice, and if you caught a bad flu and the flu, you know, killed you, but the cause of death would be cancer. (3:14 - 3:30) Whereas after 2020, anybody with COVID in their body, suicide, car accident, terminally ill with cancer. So we debunked the PCR testing. Anyway, all that to say that the judges fell victim to the fear-mongering, which is okay. (3:30 - 3:43) You can't fault the judge for that. Pre-trial, if they walk into court, you know, they haven't looked at the evidence yet. They're biased into believing that COVID is an unusually deadly killer and that it's really scary. (3:43 - 4:30) You can't fault somebody, you can't fault a judge for whatever biases they might have. What you can fault a judge for is once the evidence gets presented in court and there's ignore the evidence and just run with the media narrative, even though it's been debunked in the courtroom and they offer no explanation as to why they feel that the government's evidence is better. Now I've read a lot of books now on COVID-19, interviewed a lot of the authors, but there was something exceptional about your book that I really loved because you started out by talking about Nazi Germany and the parallels that just keep coming of, yeah, we saw this fascism and this fear-mongering and this control of the populace and capturing of the courts and the more you go into it, the more you see the parallels of what's happened in the last four and a half years. (4:30 - 4:49) So let's talk about that. Well, in Nazi Germany, the lawyers and the law professors and the judges, they embraced national socialist ideology and that's what governed their court rulings. So, I mean, they would still have a trial. (4:49 - 5:19) They would still have evidence presented by two different sides, but everything was through a national socialist lens. And so it was ideology first, law second, and this is in a country that was respected in Europe as the leader in science, in architecture, in medicine, in industry. Germany was an admired and respected nation, and yet it fell into this ideology. (5:20 - 5:37) And the fear is what played a huge role in Hitler and the national socialists acquiring power and then exercising power. The fear was maintained while they were in office. It was, oh, you still got to be afraid of the communists. (5:37 - 5:48) You still have to be afraid of the Jews. The fear was always there to crush debate and to maintain their power. Yes. (5:48 - 6:35) Now, and I was asking you earlier about fear of what? And so that brings it kind of full circles back to that where, yes, there were people who were afraid of the virus, but there were a lot of people who were afraid of the consequences of not going along with the narrative. I think that definitely, I mean, this is speculative, but I think, I think in Canada, certainly with, yeah, there was a fear of the virus, but I think there was a lot of people were afraid of being part of a minority because nobody likes to be, even the person with the thickest skin, they still don't like being denounced as a kook, an idiot, a conspiracy theorist, anti-science, uneducated, or you don't care about people dying. You don't care about grandma catching COVID and dying. (6:35 - 6:50) Shame on you for not caring about your fellow man. Yes. Well, nobody, nobody likes to be called, you know, uncaring, lacking in compassion and, or being called anti-science and anti-intellectual. (6:51 - 7:09) So that played a big role, I think, in generating lots of compliance. Now you were just talking about anti-science and one of the things that you mentioned in the book, and I kind of drew my own conclusion from this. Maybe I didn't quite word it the way that you did, but you were talking about Nazi Germany, science and religion. (7:10 - 7:41) And then what occurred to me was, but also religion as science. Well, the part of the fascist ideology is that we can manage mankind and manage society in the same way that we might manage the construction of a building. And this is a doctrine known as scientism, which is scientism is the belief that science can answer all questions. (7:42 - 7:58) And I disagree with that. I think science, science can tell you how to successfully execute a convicted murderer. And science can tell you that, you know, you've got hanging or electrocution or firing squad or whatever. (7:58 - 8:15) You can scientifically prove that, that there are certain things that will kill a convicted criminal. Science, in my view, cannot answer the question. Is it always right? Sometimes right or never right to execute a convicted murderer? Well, now you're not into science. (8:15 - 8:43) Now you're into philosophy and religion as to a metaphysical value of human life and the soul of this, that, and the other thing. And people, you're not in the realm of science. If you're trying to answer the question, is it always right? Sometimes right or never right to execute a convicted murderer, but fascists have this scientism and we saw this under COVID. (8:43 - 8:59) It's like, well, you know, we've got a virus and we can just, you know, you're not going to have Christmas dinner with your mother and you're not going to go to church. And this doctor here, you're going to lose your license. If you question lockdowns, because we're all in this together and we need the support of doctors to make this work. (8:59 - 9:10) So we're going to threaten doctor, which the colleges did threaten doctors with the loss of their license. If they spoke out publicly against vaccines or lockdowns. Carried through in many cases. (9:10 - 9:24) And carried through, prosecuted people have removed licenses from doctors. So there's a parallel there. So in, in Nazi Germany, there was an, another fascist regime in Italy under Mussolini. (9:24 - 10:06) There's this scientism, there's this doctrine that politicians can manage society as though managing a construction project, completely negating our human nature and our souls, our minds, our spirits, and turning us into, I guess, inanimate objects that just kind of like, like chess pieces on a chessboard that, that, you know, Jason Kenney in Alberta or Doug Ford in Ontario could just play with people in the same way that you or I might play with chess pieces on a board. That's scientism. Yes. (10:06 - 10:31) And a lot of that ideology came from one of the, your primary sources for the first section of this book, Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich, where he talks about fear and propaganda. Where do you see those parallels with what's happened in the last four and a half years? Well, he points out how Hitler provided comfort to a nation. This is in the twenties and thirties before taking power. (10:31 - 10:45) And to some extent after taking power, I mean, got rid of unemployment. People love that. You know, got everybody into a program where they could save money and own a car. (10:45 - 11:08) This is at a time when car ownership is not like today commonly accepted, but it was, it was a novelty. Like, wow, you can earn, you can own your own car and drive your own car and holidays. And, and, and the whole nation had a sense of purpose because they were going to restore Germany's honor and, and make Germany great again and whatever, you know, this kind of stuff. (11:08 - 11:34) So you had the simplicity, it, it's over simplistic. Hitler had very simple solutions to complex problems. And there's a parallel there where you have the COVID politicians and chief medical officers say, well, you know, lockdowns are going to save us. (11:35 - 11:48) Well, they didn't. I mean, there's no evidence put forward by governments in court actions to prove, or even show that lockdown saved lives. It was something that was just asserted repeatedly and then judges accepted it. (11:48 - 11:50) Oh yeah. Of course, lockdown saved lives. Yeah. (11:50 - 11:54) We all know that. We don't need an explanation. Right. (11:54 - 12:03) So then the, the not, and yes, Hitler, when he first started out, he did some wonderful things for the German people. They'd been in horrible economic. Unemployment, hyperinflation. (12:04 - 12:09) Everything was just. People's savings wiped out. Children playing with barrelfuls of money because it was worthless and he fixed all that. (12:09 - 12:24) But then it transitioned into this tyrannical government and this was done with, and you've talked about this in the book, a permanent sense of crisis. Yes. And that's exactly what we went through a couple of years ago. (12:24 - 12:45) It was always a crisis, always, you know, well, you can take your mask off for the next two weeks, but you know, you better, you better keep it in your back pocket and be ready to put it back on again because the virus could come back aggressively any, any time now. And of course the crisis back then and now was manufactured. It didn't actually exist. (12:45 - 13:05) And yet people bought it anyway, which gets us back into the fear and propaganda. Well, there's a kernel of truth, right? People, if you come up with something that is like a hundred percent lie, people are likely to reject it, but you, you include some truth in it. So with, with the whole COVID regime, there's a few kernels of truth. (13:05 - 13:21) COVID is real. It was a serious threat to a small minority of the population who are elderly and already sick with serious conditions, emphysema, heart disease, whatever. So the virus is real. (13:21 - 13:37) It's a serious threat to minority people. We should, as a basic moral principle, we should try to love our neighbor and be concerned about our neighbor and we should make reasonable efforts to protect vulnerable people from the virus. So those are, those are some kernels of truth. (13:37 - 14:04) And so in Germany in the twenties and thirties, the kernel of truth was that there was a strong communist party at, at its, at one point it had, I think it was 17% of the vote. This is not a fringe minority group that, you know, like the Marxist Leninist party of Canada or something that gets, you know, one, one hundredth of 1% of the vote in an election, right. It's a fringe group that has zero chance of taking power. (14:04 - 14:20) Right. And this was at a time in history when there was a number of communist countries in Europe. There was, there was the Soviet union and then, and there was communist parties were strong, meaning, you know, 5%, 10, 15, 20%, 30% of the vote. (14:20 - 14:41) They had communist parties all over Europe getting serious chunks of the vote and they were hostile to democracy, given the chance they would cheat their way into office or they would seize power and abolish democracy. So that was a real threat. It was a real danger. (14:42 - 14:55) But after Hitler took power, he kept on magnifying this. Well, there are still this threat of communism, even though it was in total, the national socialists were, they controlled the courts. They controlled the police. (14:55 - 14:59) They controlled the economy. They had the secret police. They had informants everywhere. (14:59 - 15:10) They were in, they were in total control of Germany, but still they kept on saying, oh, communist danger, communist danger, communist danger. You gotta watch out. The communists could, could take over at any moment. (15:10 - 15:32) And so they, they perpetuated this fear of communism, which was a real threat prior to prior to the national socialists taking power in 1933, there was a real possibility that the communists could take power. It was a real danger. After 1933, it was no longer a real threat, but they kept on with the propaganda. (15:32 - 15:49) It was always about stopping the communists right through to 1945. And then once the communists weren't a threat anymore, now it was the Jews. Well, both, all the way through it was the communists were, were a danger, but they also said, yeah, the, the, the Jews are a serious threat. (15:49 - 16:19) They propagated that before they took power and after they took power and they acted almost immediately in, in April of 1933, you had the, the law for the restoration of the professional civil service. And it sounds really nice kicking all the Jews out of the civil service. And so very quickly, very early on, the Jews were expelled from the civil service, the judiciary, Jewish judges were removed, law faculties, Jewish judges kicked out. (16:20 - 16:36) The legal profession, the law societies in Alberta in, sorry, law societies in Germany actively worked with the government to expel Jews from the legal profession. Right. And you make a good point that communism was a real threat. (16:36 - 16:51) But then you, you segued into COVID and comparing that, except that there was no difference. Essentially we seem to say the threat of COVID and the threat of influenza, which we've always had. So this was a manufactured threat. (16:51 - 17:17) It was, yeah, you could, you could say, you could say manufactured, I'd say grossly distorted. So it was, it was a more serious threat to elderly people than the average annual flu. But then again, the average annual flu every year killed children, babies, infants, toddlers, children, five and under were threatened by the annual flu. (17:17 - 17:27) And, and some died, thankfully not in huge numbers, but one death is too many. So children were threatened by the annual flu. Children were not threatened by COVID. (17:27 - 17:56) Right. So in terms of overall impact on population mortality, COVID was on par with the annual flu possibly was less dangerous, but you had a gross exaggeration by the politicians, chief medical officers, media, and so-called experts and so-called scientists all saying that this was a serious threat to everybody and everybody should live in fear. Yes. (17:56 - 18:06) That was completely, totally false. There's no need to, unless you're a part of that vulnerable group of elderly with serious health conditions, there's no reason to live in fear. Right. (18:06 - 18:14) But you were also talking about the Jews and how in Nazi Germany, they were ejected from all of these various services. And publicly vilified by the media. Right. (18:15 - 18:26) For eight years. Yes. Which is important because people who are ignorant of history, they think that, oh, well, Hitler took power on Tuesday and then Wednesday he's marching people off into the gas chambers. (18:26 - 18:40) Like, no, there's eight years of daily vilification to kind of get the German population ready for a large-scale genocide in which many Germans participated. Yeah. And it was a step-by-step process. (18:41 - 18:46) I mean, at first you have to wear an armband that identifies you as a Jew. Okay. Or now that you're a Jew, you can't go into certain places. (18:46 - 18:50) Okay. Well, now we're going to put you into ghettos and now we're going to put you into concentration camps. Okay. (18:50 - 19:15) And then we're going to implement our final solution and just kill them all. But I wanted to draw the parallel between the Jews and the way they were treated then and the new social pariahs in the last few years, anybody who spoke out against the narrative. Well, you had parallels and here, this is where people, they tend, people say legitimately, and I agree, you cannot compare forcing somebody to wear a mask, forcing somebody to get injected with a vaccine. (19:15 - 19:23) You cannot compare that to killing people, marching them off to the gas chambers. And I agree. There's no comparison between those two. (19:24 - 19:45) What there is a fair comparison about is what happened in Germany in the thirties, where you take one group of people and lots of other countries. We don't have to fixate on Germany, but where you take a group of people and say, you are second-class citizens. You are not as fully human as the rest of the population. (19:45 - 19:57) You are subhuman. We're going to strip you of your rights and freedoms. That is something that sadly is, is a parallel with Germany in the thirties. (19:58 - 20:22) And again, so many other countries and Canada, even within our own nation, even within Canada, right? You had the internment of Germans and Italians and Ukrainians and so on during world war two. And then internment of the Japanese and Germans and Italians in world war two. Sorry, the first one was world war one was the Ukrainians and other groups. (20:22 - 20:32) And then world war two, Japanese, Germans, Italians, interned second-class citizens based on fear. Even here in Canada. Even here in Canada. (20:32 - 20:41) Yes. Now let's talk about the capturing of the media, because once again, there's a strong parallel. The media was parroting everything the government told them to say. (20:42 - 21:08) And it was done here with money was a big part of it. You know, if you are the rebel or true north or the Western standard or the Epoch times and you're, and you're not getting government money, you've got the freedom to do some honest investigative journalism and you can cover both sides of the issue. You know, and the pro lockdown side should be covered because that's part of reality. (21:08 - 21:22) It was a fact that many people thought that lockdowns were great. So that should be covered in the news as a fact, but you cover both sides and the, the government funding media, we're not doing that. I don't think it was government funding alone though. (21:22 - 22:11) I think a lot of it was just a, it was, it was a bandwagon that, that, you know, if you saw a bunch of people, if you looked out your window and a whole bunch of people were running down the street and saying, there is a terrible fire that is rapidly moving through the neighborhood, there's a good chance you're going to also leave your house and join the crowd running away from the fire. You don't really have time. You're, it's scary, right? If there's a fire that is rapidly, you know, house after house, after house, you're not going to say, well, how, how fast is the fire moving and how hot is it? And is there a chance that the firefighters are going to, you're not going to ask a lot of questions. (22:11 - 22:21) You might very well join that same crowd of people stampeding away from the fire. I wouldn't blame you for doing that if you did that. So the media were the same. (22:21 - 22:29) The, there's that fear of COVID and it's threatens everybody. And it's, it's the scariest thing. It's the worst pandemic in a century. (22:29 - 22:51) And so they were just carried along with that fear. It's not right, but I think that's what happened. And how much of a role do you think the fact that our mainstream media in Canada today is unquestionably leftist, how much of a role do you think that played? Well, I'm not, you know, the whole left and right thing broke down, I think to a large extent. (22:51 - 23:51) I talk about this in one of the chapters of the book where there are people that I had been ideologically friendly with and often personal friends as well, but certainly, you know, small government, maximum freedom for the individual, fundamental freedoms of, you know, religion, conscience, expression, association, peaceful assembly, government has to respect those. So respect for the individual, limited government, the rule of law, a democracy where laws are made by our elected representatives and they're not declared into force at news conferences by unelected, unaccountable medical doctors. Like that whole thing, you know, the tyranny, the fusion of the executive and legislative powers where you've got the one, you know, chief medical officer is like a medieval monarch who just decrees what the law shall be. (23:51 - 24:15) Moment by moment. And so people that I have been, you know, allied with for literally decades in terms of politics in Canada, they bought into this COVID narrative. So people that you might call right wing, they bought into the COVID narrative just as much as people that you might call left wing, they bought into it. (24:15 - 24:40) So you have a whole different alignment now. And do you think that that was, when we're speaking specifically of these formerly right wing people who you knew for many, many years, who went over and bought into a whole narrative, how much of that do you think was fear? And how much of that was just herd mentality? Great question. I take a, just a guess would be half and half. (24:41 - 25:00) But it's so disappointing. I think one person in particular, I won't mention his name, but he doesn't mind being part of a minority. He argues that a minimum wage is we should abolish the minimum wage because it's terrible because it harms people with less experience, less talent, less skill. (25:01 - 25:23) And that's a minority viewpoint. He argues that rent control should be abolished because they contribute and cause widespread homelessness over time, which again is probably a minority opinion. So he doesn't mind being part of this unpopular minority and just coming right out with his views. (25:23 - 25:54) And yet on COVID, it's not, well, the government, you know, the chief medical officer said that this is a really scary virus and we should live in fear. I never go shopping without my mask on. He was wearing a mask when it wasn't even mandatory, you know, but a smart guy, PhD, author of books, willing to be contrarian and just slurps up this Kool-Aid and, and won't debate either. (25:54 - 26:00) No, this is the truth. You know, lockdowns are right. COVID is the worst thing ever. (26:00 - 26:07) There's no cure. There's no way to deal with COVID other than lockdowns. Lockdowns are wonderful, everything. (26:08 - 26:11) And he won't debate those issues. Right. Very frustrating. (26:11 - 26:22) Now, most of the viewers know that you're a lawyer by trade. You're the founder and president of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms. Your lawyers have fought more cases against the government overreach than any other organization in our country. (26:22 - 26:49) I would say by a wide margin. So let's talk about the capturing of the courts. You know, it's, it's, it's analogous to, Mike talked about this, this person I know who has a PhD, who's an author, who's ordinarily, he's willing to be contrarian, you know, for example, being against minimum wage, against rent controls, doesn't mind being part of a minority, and yet just kind of falls for this. (26:49 - 26:59) And you have judges who otherwise are very thinking people. They are, I've met a lot of judges over the years. They're smart. (27:00 - 27:05) They're dedicated. They're good people. They are truth loving people. (27:06 - 27:38) And yet you get, you get a judge like Renee Pomerantz in Ontario, in the Trinity Bible Chapel versus Ontario case, as she actually writes in her ruling, she says, I am neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific controversies regarding COVID-19. And then she having declared herself to be neither equipped nor inclined to deal with scientific evidence, she then rolls in favor of the government and basically lowers the bar for governments as well. Government said it was an emergency. (27:39 - 28:00) Government said that COVID was, was, you know, really the worst thing in a century, which is not true by the way, because the Asian flu and the Hong Kong flu were more deadly than COVID. Well, there can be a very good argument made that seasonal flu is worse than COVID, but let's not go there right now. But certainly, but we need even stronger argument for the Asian flu and the Hong Kong flu. (28:01 - 28:09) Yes. Anyway. So she said, well, the government said that this is a really, really terrible virus. (28:09 - 28:37) The government has said that lockdowns are the best solution. And who am I to question the government? And, but, but in other cases, okay. So if this judge was trying a criminal case, she wouldn't just rule in favor of the crown and say, well, because a lot of criminal cases, you have forensic evidence about what happened in a crime and you have scientists and you need to grapple with science and the same with civil litigation. (28:37 - 29:01) You got a patient is suing a doctor over harm alleging that there's a malpractice, right? The judge has to listen to competing experts and the plaintiff patients got the experts saying, oh, this doctor was really negligent. Didn't meet up this, you know, standard, proper standards of care. The doctor is going to have his medical experts saying, oh no, the doctor did a fine job. (29:02 - 29:20) Well, now the judge who is not a medical doctor has to grapple with scientific evidence and issue a ruling, either the doctor is liable or the doctor is not liable. And the judge, I don't think Renee Pomerance in that case would say, I'm neither equipped nor inclined to grapple with scientific issues. So therefore I'm going to rule in favor of the defendant. (29:21 - 29:34) And I don't think in a criminal case that she would say, I'm neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific controversies. Therefore I rule in favor of the crown because that's the government. She wouldn't do that. (29:36 - 29:49) So it's terrible. And then this gets repeated. There's another judge in Alberta, Justice Romaine, Barbara Romaine, on a COVID case where the citizens were. (29:49 - 29:51) Well, that was challenging. The Ingram case. The Ingram case. (29:52 - 30:14) So citizens are alleging that the lockdowns are unjustified violations of the rights and freedoms. And Barbara Romaine, see pre-2020, a judge would have been insulted. If, if somebody had written pre-2020, Justice Renee Pomerance is neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific controversies, she would have felt insulted. (30:14 - 30:50) Now she's using this language to describe herself and then it gets adopted by Barbara Romaine. She said, like my colleague in Ontario, Renee Pomerance, I am neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific controversies. But then, and then she goes on to rule that the, the lockdowns were, she strikes down lockdowns on the basis of lockdowns having been effectively imposed by Premier Jason Kenney and the cabinet, not by Deena Hinshaw because Deena Hinshaw testified in the trial that she was merely giving advice to the government. (30:50 - 31:00) The real decision maker, according to Deena Hinshaw was Jason Kenney. Right. And we should point out for our viewers outside of Alberta, Deena Hinshaw was the public health officer here at the time. (31:00 - 31:20) Yes. Yeah. So, so she invalidates the lockdown measures, but then she goes on to talk about the charter issues and she says, she says, by the way, lockdowns were justified violations of charter rights and freedoms with this whole, I'm neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific controversies. (31:20 - 32:01) So that's, I, I, or in my book, I say more than once, I say, if you happen to be somebody who was pro lockdown, pro vaccine passport, even if that was your view, even if you're happy with the outcome of these court rulings, you should be deeply concerned when judges just defer to the government. And they don't even want to look at the science because well, the government said, you know, so extrapolate that maybe 10 years from now, five years from now, maybe six months from now, the government's going to say, we're going to, we're going to violate all your charter rates and freedoms. It's to save you from the climate holocaust and you are going to burn to a crisp. (32:01 - 32:13) So we're going to lock you up in 15 minute prison districts. I mean, sorry, 15 minute cities. We're going to lock you up in 15 minute cities to avert the climate holocaust to protect you for your own good. (32:15 - 32:37) I would ask people who are pro lockdown, do you want judges on the bench? Are you going to say, well, the government said that there's a climate holocaust and the government said that it's got a great solution for that. And the government said that it's justified in violating all your rates and freedoms. And who am I to grapple with scientific controversies? So I'm just going to rule in favour of the government. (32:38 - 32:59) Is that the judges? Is that the kind of judge we want? Are those the kind of judges that we want on the bench? Right. And I can remember when Justice Pomerantz made that statement about neither equipped nor inclined. And that was the point at which I started to get a really sick feeling in my stomach about our chances in the courts, because if she had simply said not equipped, okay, that we can address. (32:59 - 33:19) And your lawyers attempted to bring in expert witnesses, including Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the world's formless epidemiologists, coauthor of the Great Barrington Declaration to testify. And it was completely ignored. And that single statement, neither equipped nor inclined, that one really bothered me because that was basically a statement outright that no, we're not going to look at any of the evidence. (33:20 - 33:27) We're just going to accept what the government says. We're just going to take it on judicial notice that COVID is this horrible disease. And if we don't do all of these things, millions of people are going to die. (33:27 - 33:44) And just accept that. Well, in, in our challenge to lockdowns in Manitoba, one of our expert witnesses along with Jay Bhattacharya was Dr. Joel Kettner. Dr. Joel Kettner was a former chief medical officer of the province of Manitoba. (33:44 - 34:05) Because of course, you know, pre COVID we all had these chief medical officers that were, you know, fulfilling their functions. And he eviscerated the government's case. He pointed out so many things that the PCR testing is meaningless, does not diagnose COVID, you're elevating your COVID numbers. (34:06 - 34:25) The Manitoba government knew that every time that they talked about a thousand COVID cases, they knew that at least 400 of the thousand, at least probably a lot more, at least 400 of those were not sick with COVID. They knew that they were lying to the public. The judge doesn't care. (34:26 - 34:40) Right. And Dr. Mullis, Dr. Kary Mullis, who was the Nobel prize winning inventor of the PCR test, who unfortunately passed away in 2019, came right out and said, it does not tell you if you were sick, it can't detect free infectious viruses at all. Yeah. (34:40 - 34:58) So you have a positive PCR test, you know, if you've had COVID and you've recovered from it, you've still got viral remnants in your body and the PCR test can pick those up. And then you double it, double it, double it, double it, double it. And if you run it 40 cycles, you double it 40 times, you're. (34:58 - 35:13) You can buy anything. You test positive for COVID. You know, I probably have a staph bacteria in my throat and in my nose, but I'm not sick with a staph infection right now. (35:13 - 35:20) And I'm not contagious, but a PCR test could probably detect, detect staph. Well, of course. Bacteria in my throat. (35:20 - 35:23) Walking around with dozens of viruses. Dozens of viruses. All the time. (35:23 - 35:48) But our immune system is dealing with them. But yes, as you say, if you run it through this 40 cycles through a PCR test, well, you can find anything you want. And so the judge completely ignored the expert report of Dr. Joel Kettner, which in that report, I could respect the judge's ruling if, if in his judgment, if he debunked it and said, okay, I'm not accepting the evidence of Dr. Joel Kettner. (35:48 - 36:02) And here's why. And then explain in his ruling, why the government's evidence was more persuasive than the evidence of Dr. Joel Kettner, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Both of them eviscerated the case for lockdowns. (36:03 - 36:19) And, but there's no explanation in the court ruling and the court ruling is very lengthy. It's the size of a short book. Nowhere does the judge explain why he accepted the government's evidence as stronger, better, more persuasive. (36:19 - 36:25) Nowhere. There's no explanation offered. He reviews the evidence, not Dr. Kettner's. (36:25 - 36:37) He ignores that. You won't, you won't see that in the judgment, right? So here's this expert medical report that completely debunks the whole case for lockdowns in Manitoba. And the judge ignores it. (36:37 - 36:43) It's not in the ruling. Jay Bhattacharya's report, he goes through the evidence. He lists it. (36:44 - 37:18) You know, he, at one point in his judgment, he says the survival, the COVID survival rate is, you know, 99.99% for this age group and 99.91% for this age group. He lists all this evidence. He lists the evidence that debunks the PCR testing, but then he goes on to say, okay, but you know, PCR testing is a valid basis for imposing lockdowns on people, even though it doesn't refute to the debunking. (37:18 - 37:19) Right. If you know what I mean. Right. (37:19 - 37:22) And I want to clarify the judge said that. Yeah. No judge. (37:22 - 37:24) Not Dr. Bhattacharya. Right. Okay. (37:24 - 37:49) So now this is diverging a little bit from your book, John, but I want your opinion on this because you're just talking about Dr. Kettner, a former public health officer in Manitoba, who, as you said, went in and just eviscerated the whole argument for lockdowns. And yet during the plandemic, and I use that word openly, we had every single public health officer in this country jumping on the bandwagon. So we need lockdowns, we need masks, we need social distancing, and everybody's got to take a vaccine. (37:50 - 38:09) What do you think happened there? Why do we have a single one of them that stood up and said, hey, wait a minute, this doesn't make any sense. Well, we had, his name escapes me right now. The guy in Ontario, he was, they had their regional chief medical officers, Matt, sorry, it'll come to me later. (38:10 - 38:22) We had one guy in Ontario who was not that enthusiastic about lockdowns. He's now running for parliament. He's a federal conservative candidate. (38:23 - 38:45) And again, I apologize, his name escapes my mind, but I agree with you. Every chief medical officer in every province, I think it was the herd mentality. I think it was combination of, and I'm speculating because I can't get inside another person's head, right? Do I really know what motivates you? I mean, I can speculate, right? But I don't know for sure because I'm not, I'm not you. (38:45 - 39:03) I'm not inside of your head. I'm not inside of your heart, which is even more important than the head. So I will speculate and say that the chief medical officers, partly not thinking because of fear, because they accepted the false claims of Dr. Neil Ferguson, that COVID would be like the Spanish flu of 1918, et cetera. (39:03 - 39:12) So I think it was fear, corrupted by fear. It's the title of my book. And fear gets us to not think, right? Fire analogy. (39:13 - 39:30) If somebody says to me, the building's on fire, I'm not going to say, well, what part of the building that the fire originated on? How hot is the fire? How quickly is the fire spreading? How long before the fire gets to this part of the building? I'm not going to ask those questions. I'm just going to run for the nearest exit. If I'm told that the building's on fire. (39:30 - 39:38) So chief medical officers fell prey to the fear mongering. They didn't think. And then I also think they don't want to be the odd man out. (39:39 - 39:49) It's very hard. You remember the experiments from the 1960s where they have, they have these decoys who are in on the experiment. Yes. (39:49 - 40:02) And you have the two lines and the lines, it's like these lines are, you know, which line is taller, right? And the obvious answer, this line is taller than this line. And yet. You get the first two people who are plants to say, oh, well it's it's. (40:02 - 40:15) And they pointed the shorter line and say, that's the taller one. That's the taller one. And then other people, well, especially if it's four or five people, like the sixth person who's not the plant, like who's doesn't know what's going on. (40:16 - 40:27) They fold and they agree with the other five. But if there's one other person, then they, then they feel far more encouraged. It's like it radically changes it. (40:28 - 40:41) So there's four people making obviously incorrect judgment call for people. One person makes the correct judgment call then that the other person who's not in on the game will. Yes. (40:43 - 41:00) So people hate to be the odd man out. And when you got five people in the room saying that, you know, this, this line is shorter, most people, they just find it incredibly difficult to say, no, it's that line that's, that's taller. Yes. (41:01 - 41:18) Now I want to get back to the COVID numbers and the fear mongering, because it's been well-established at this point in time that due to the PCR testing, the COVID case numbers were dramatically inflated. Yes. And we've had all kinds of testimony coming up very often saying something like 97% of the COVID tests were actually false positives. (41:19 - 41:38) But you put something in your book that I confess I did not know about, which I certain had to be a big contributing factor to that. Chief Justice Richard Wagner and Justice Minister David Lametti formed an action committee on court operations in response to COVID-19. So I didn't know about this. (41:38 - 42:07) So there was basically a government mandate given to the courts. Well, there may have been, we need to investigate this more. I'm planning to, the justice center, either myself or one of our staff will be writing to different judges and asking the question, did you, what kinds of information were you presented with prior to taking on the case? Basically, what were you told? That's all we're after. (42:07 - 42:29) And it might, it might turn out to be not very sinister. Maybe it's, maybe the judges were presented behind closed doors with the same contents that the Canadian public was presented with on the CBC news, you know, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Maybe there's no difference, but for the purpose of transparency though, we need to know what, what were they. (42:29 - 42:39) But, but hang on, let me, let me jump in here and express my concern a little more clearly. If it had just been chief justice, Richard Wagner, that would have been a problem to me. He's part of the judiciary. (42:39 - 42:52) Okay. But justice minister, David Lametti, he's part of this legislative branch and the two are not supposed to mix. So now you've got a government official dictating to the courts. (42:52 - 43:08) We don't know if they dictated. They know that we know that we were on a joint that we know because they've, the government's advertised, this was not through some FOI request. The government's website says that there's this committee of judges and politicians meeting together. (43:09 - 43:30) We have, we have no idea. We have no idea whether anything was dictated to the courts, but for the purposes of transparency, there, there is a problem. It's that we don't know what the judges were presented with when, what content, when, by whom, that's the problem. (43:30 - 43:40) But there is this document of which the government had a hand that was sent to the courts and you're being honest. You're saying we're not exactly sure what was in it yet. Or numerous documents. (43:41 - 43:48) Or numerous documents. Not just one. So the problem here that I'm criticizing in the book is, is just the lack of transparency. (43:48 - 44:03) Right. If you and I are plaintiff and defendant in a, in a court case, you could write a letter to the judge about something, but you have to copy me and I have to know about it. Even if it's just a scheduling matter. (44:03 - 44:33) If you write a letter to the judge to say you're not available for, for trial in the month of July, but you've got to copy me on that and vice versa. There has to be that transparency. So we need to find out what was the evidence presented to the judges? What was it? When was it presented? By whom? In what context? And hopefully it'll turn out to be just benign. (44:33 - 44:54) The judges were told the same thing that, that all 38 million or 40 million Canadians were told on the six o'clock news by the CDC. Now let's segue and talk about one of the greatest foundations of Canadian law, the Oakes test and how it was ignored. It was not applied by judges who claimed to be applying it. (44:55 - 45:18) So you'll find in these rulings, the judges will say the applicable test here is the Oakes test. And so I'm going to apply the Oakes test. Well, the Oakes test, if I was to summarize it, the government has to prove not beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal case, but the government has to prove on a balance of probabilities. (45:18 - 45:48) So the civil standard, like plaintiff defendant in a civil lawsuit, right? The plaintiff wins or the defendant wins on a balance of probabilities. The government has to prove that it's measures that violate a charter freedoms, one or more expression, association, conscience, religion, peaceful assembly, travel, mobility, bodily autonomy, what have you. The government has to prove that the measure was rational. (45:49 - 46:01) So there's a direct connection between. Between the violation of the rights and what was done in response to whatever the supposed emergency was. Yeah. (46:02 - 46:50) So there has to be a pressing objective, which I would argue with COVID there wasn't when you consider the reality of COVID and put aside the media propaganda, the, the all cause mortality shows that this is not some virus that really devastated the human population. You had a lot of people, elderly people that were categorized as having died of COVID instead of having died of cancer or heart disease or other illnesses. Anyway, the government has to prove that, that you've got a very serious problem that the law to address it is rationally connected to, to solving the problem that the rights are being violated as little as possible. (46:50 - 47:12) And then the fourth part is to show that the, the health order that violates our rights and freedoms is actually bringing about more good than harm. And that's what I fixate on the most because court ruling after court ruling, after court ruling, you have judges who say they're applying the Oakes test and they just ignore lockdown harms. Yes. (47:12 - 47:21) They don't talk about it. We have one case, the Hillier case in Ontario, Hillier versus Ontario. And of course you're speaking of former MP Randy Hillier. (47:21 - 47:40) Former MP Randy Hillier. We had the expert report of Dr. Kevin Bardosh, who is a medical anthropologist who very impressive, you know, 20 page CV, peer reviewed studies, publications. He's been all over the world, highly respected academic. (47:40 - 48:03) And he goes through using the government's own evidence. He goes through lockdown harms. And he goes into, you know, anxiety disorders amongst children and obesity and increased alcoholism and is unemployment, which is bad for your health on and on and on. (48:03 - 48:11) It's got this expert report that talks about lockdown harms. Very comprehensive. Hundreds of footnotes, references to other peer-reviewed studies. (48:12 - 48:39) Now it would have been open to the court to have said, we reject Kevin Bardosh's report because the government has put forward all this evidence showing that lockdowns were not all that harmful. It was basically just an inconvenience for people. And then explaining why the government's evidence was more persuasive to show that lockdown harms were minimal, right? You won't find it in judgment. (48:40 - 48:56) The judge doesn't even touch. He says, he says that, that Dr. Kevin Bardosh is not a virologist or an epidemiologist and he's just not qualified to comment. But they were ignoring Dr. Bhattacharya, who is an epidemiologist. (48:57 - 49:00) Yeah. Yeah. So no consistency there at all. (49:00 - 49:21) No, I mean, two different courts, but I agree there's no consistency whatsoever. But a medical anthropologist, a public health anthropologist tells us about these lockdown harms. Again, it is an academic paper. (49:21 - 49:29) It was an expert report submitted before the court. The court dismisses it without looking at it. And then, and then rules, you know, as did Justice Barbara Romaine. (49:30 - 49:41) She devotes all of seven very short paragraphs in her ruling are devoted to lockdown harms versus lockdown benefits, right. Required by the Oakes test. And there's no analysis. (49:41 - 49:53) And she says, well, the Alberta government concedes that the lockdowns caused an inconvenience and some hardship to people. That's it. That's the totality. (49:53 - 50:08) And she says, but you know, obviously the lockdown benefits far outweigh the harms. Zero analysis. So the judges say that they're applying the Oakes test, but they're not, they ignore lockdown harms. (50:08 - 50:28) You cannot under the Oakes test, ignore lockdown harms. You could, in theory, a judge could, could, you know, review the evidence and say the government's evidence is more persuasive to show that lockdowns were not harmful and then explain why the government's evidence is more persuasive. That's a possible outcome that could have happened. (50:29 - 50:36) They don't do that. It's just ignore the lockdown harms. Now I, it had been some time since I reviewed the Oakes test myself. (50:36 - 50:56) So I went and I looked it up prior to this interview and I ran across something that I found very disturbing. I, and many people now are using a search engine called perplexity.ai. It's another AI driven search engine. It's become very popular because most of the AI search engines have worked from a library of the internet that cuts off at some point in the past, a year, year and a half ago. (50:56 - 51:01) It doesn't have current information. Perplexity.ai does. It searches the internet as it is now. (51:01 - 51:22) So it's looking at up-to-date information and it can, it gave me the Oakes test points, but then it concluded with this statement. And this, this is scary stuff because the Oakes test is supposed to be our safeguard for our constitutional rights and freedoms. The courts are supposed to apply this to make sure that the government isn't violating our rights and freedoms without just cause. (51:23 - 51:26) Without just cause. Yeah. And this is what perplexity.ai finished up with. (51:26 - 51:55) And remember, it's just repeating what it's finding online and summarizing. It's worth noting that while the Oakes test was originally designed to be applied universally, the Supreme Court has shown flexibility in its application, recognizing that different contexts may require different approaches to balancing rights and societal interests. So what we've got right here is an AI search engine based upon what it's finding online saying that, well, we might as well just forget about the Oakes test because they can now ignore it at will. (51:57 - 52:09) I would, certainly it's true that, that the, the courts have some latitude. It's going to be applied differently in different contexts. Okay. (52:09 - 52:38) So for example, the Supreme Court of Canada long decades ago struck down the Lord's day act, the Lord's day act was federal criminal law legislation. I believe it was criminal law, but it was federal legislation. And it said, you can't do business on the Christian Sabbath, which is a Sunday and the court struck down that law and said it was a violation of the right to be free from religion. (52:41 - 53:33) Anyway, other, so governments adopted other policies and there was a, there was an Ontario bought in a law at one point that said, well, we're going to legislate that Sunday is a common day of rest because it's good for society, for business to slow down and we're going to have a kind of a pause day. And so when, and that was challenged, I don't remember whether the court upheld it or struck it down. Anyway, using the Oakes test there, right on when the government legislates a common day of rest, it's going to be a different analysis than say what's coming up in Alberta, where you've got, the government has legislated some things pertaining to transgender ideology and parental rights and the right of parents to be fully informed about what's going on with their own kids at school. (53:34 - 53:48) When that gets challenged, as I think it will, when those laws get challenged, it's going to be a different Oakes test. So it's okay for the courts to apply it differently. What I'm concerned about is the total negation. (53:48 - 53:57) Yes, that we've seen. And we had not yet seen that. And I hope we won't see it with Supreme court of Canada at that level, but we've certainly seen it in the lower courts. (53:57 - 54:27) We've seen a negation of the Oakes test, which again is scary. I would urge, you know, if anybody's watching this or listening to this, if you're pro lockdown, pro vaccine passport, you should be very afraid of courts that do not apply the Oakes test and just believe whatever the government says and give government an easy pass on violating rights and freedoms. That's the key point, right? Even if you were four lockdowns, four vaccine passports, this is terrifying jurisprudence. (54:28 - 54:46) Yes. Now I want to talk about another case that really disturbed me. And that was the travel ban case that was brought by Maxime Bernier, Brian Peckford and others and represented by JCCF lawyers where the justice ruled it moot because he said, well, they're no longer in place. (54:47 - 55:24) And they don't want to be suspended, not repealed, but that's a bit of hair splitting because even, even if they'd been fully repealed and not suspended, the government can bring them back at any time. And so much evidence, so much time, effort, energy, money, taxpayers money to pay for the government's lawyers and expert witnesses, money from justice center donors for court action for the expert testimony on our side. Lawyers time, expert reports, expert witnesses, tens of thousands of dollars, you know, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars. (55:24 - 56:03) I don't know, had been invested, right? If you look at the total, the government's investment in its evidence and Brian Peckford, Maxime Bernier, Justice Centre and some other groups as well, non-justice center parties, all together, tens of thousands of dollars spent on that. And then the judge says, oh yeah, well travel restrictions no longer enforce its moot. But you've heard me make this analogy before, and I'm going to do it again, because to me, this is no different than a judge declaring an assault case moot because the assault is no longer in progress. (56:03 - 56:15) It is not the job of a court to determine whether or not a crime is in progress, but whether or not a crime has been committed. Yeah. Well, yeah, because using that logic, the defendant could say, well, well, I'm not shoplifting right now. (56:15 - 56:24) So I should just be able to get off or I'm not killing anybody right now. So even if the evidence shows that I did commit a murder, but I'm not killing anybody now. So it's moot. (56:25 - 56:39) No, it's not moot. The government violated our rights. That's one thing actually that is positive in the whole scenario is that most of these court cases, the governments did admit right up front. (56:39 - 57:05) They didn't dispute that their measures were a violation of one or more of our shorter rights and freedoms. So that's positive. So in most cases, the government's just admitted that, but then the big battle went to be fought under section one, which says governments can violate rights and freedoms as long as they are reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (57:05 - 57:20) Right. So let's talk about some of the horrible things that happened as a result of the courts jumping on this. Pastor Pawlowski, the horrible treatment he received, and it was, I've interviewed Pastor Pawlowski on that, and it was unbelievable what they did to him. (57:20 - 57:40) And that's the kind of treatment that you reserve for mass murderers. And then the thing that really bothers me the most, which is beyond if it could bother me any more than what was done to him, all the children who were forced to take vaccines because divorced parents, separated parents, one wanted them vaccinated, the other one didn't. And the courts almost always ruled in favor. (57:40 - 57:55) The parents who wanted the child vaccinated. And we now know how harmful these dangerous these vaccines are and how much damage was done to these children against the wishes of their legal parent guardian. It just, it boggles my mind. (57:55 - 58:31) Well, it is, you know, it's normal and par for the course that, that the, uh, the courts do have to make, they're asked to make these rulings because you've got parents who disagree on something. What's really terrifying though, is just the, uh, adoption of the false claims made by politicians, chief medical officers and media that this COVID virus was a threat to children. Uh, that it was an unusual, uh, an unusually deadly killer that it was on par with the Spanish flu of 1918. (58:31 - 59:04) And then the false claims that, that, that this, uh, was somehow stopping the transmission of the virus, which it was not. Uh, one of the worst ones was, uh, Michael Megaw, uh, judge Harper appointment, not a Trudeau appointment, Harper appointment in Saskatchewan. Michael Megaw ordered a 12 year old girl to be injected with COVID vaccine and took it a step further and said that he took judicial notice of the fact that the, uh, vaccine is safe and effective for adults and children. (59:05 - 59:37) And he took judicial notice, um, because Health Canada and the Saskatchewan Health Authority have said that the vaccine is safe and effective. And that's good enough because no reasonable person would dispute what the Saskatchewan Health Authority and Health Canada have said. So you get this complete, uh, you know, fanatical ideological Kool-Aid drinking, uh, the government said it, I believe it, that settles it. (59:38 - 59:48) Statolatry, the worship of the state. Yes. And I can remember back in, it was late 2021, early 2022, looking up the government statistics, and this is from statistics Canada. (59:49 - 1:00:00) And at that point in time, there had been exactly four children in Canada who they said had died from COVID-19. Who may have died with COVID-19. Or may have died with COVID-19. (1:00:00 - 1:00:07) It's PC, they're running a PCR test. Yeah. And so you're saying that no reasonable person, but I'm a reasonable person. (1:00:07 - 1:00:25) If I were a judge, I would look that and say, okay, so we have a disease, which according to our government's own statistics is highly unlikely to kill a child. And certainly not a healthy one because all four of those kids had severe comorbidities. And we have an unknown vaccine that has not been properly tested, that is experimental by our government's own admission. (1:00:26 - 1:00:45) Seems to me that the judgment that is least likely to do harm is to say, okay, if we've had a parent who says no, well, the answer's no. Well, and he issued, Michael Megaw issued his ruling in September of 2021, which is a good 18 months. It's a year and a half after lockdowns have started. (1:00:45 - 1:01:25) There is abundant data, 18 months into lockdowns showing that the COVID was not a threat to children. And fortunately this was overturned by the Saskatchewan court of appeal, but it's still terrifying in the first place. You have a judge that you're trusting to look at evidence and to apply some common sense and to think, and who's got this fanatical, ideological commitment to this, this, what I described as the ideology of COVID-ism, you know, he's going to rule based on ideology, not based on law or facts. (1:01:25 - 1:01:40) Right. So John, we've covered a lot of the book, the subjects of the book and how you've worked in the history and you've talked about the things that happened in our courts here and with the media. So let's get to the real point of it, because of course you and I are both solution oriented people. (1:01:40 - 1:02:24) And the final part of the book is how do we stop this from happening again? Well, slaves look to tyrants and tyrants need slaves over whom they can rule. And so when you have citizens who are mature thinking, self-reliant adults, it's very hard for tyranny to take root in a population where people are awake and thinking and people accepting their responsibility as citizens, taking an active part in the democratic process. So we solve this by, I'll give you three quotes, three Proverbs. (1:02:25 - 1:02:35) First one is an old French proverb. If you don't do politics, politics will be done unto you. Second one related, different, but related. (1:02:35 - 1:02:59) The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. That's attributed to Edmund Burke. The third one, and this is going to be very much a paraphrase, I don't have the quote, but to Plato is attributed a quote along the lines of those who do not participate in the democratic process will suffer the consequence of being governed by their inferiors. (1:03:00 - 1:03:28) So it's imperative Canadians who love truth, justice, and freedom need to be actively engaged in politics, federally, provincially, municipally, and at the school board levels. And if there's enough good people that are actively engaged in the democratic process, you're not going to have tyranny. Tyranny occurs when there's not enough of the those of us who love truth and justice and freedom, when there's not enough of us who are involved. (1:03:28 - 1:03:59) And that's what we had under lockdowns. We had, I would venture a guess, an educated guess that the MPs and the provincial MPP, MLA, they were getting more phone calls and emails from Canadians saying, lock us down harder, lock us down longer. They're getting more of those calls than some people on our side who are saying, no, lockdowns are, they're not saving lives. (1:03:59 - 1:04:02) They're causing a lot of harm. Get rid of the lockdowns. Yeah. (1:04:02 - 1:04:18) And I think too, and I think part of the reason why the lockdowns got lifted in 2022 was that there were more people started to contact their MPs and their provincial representatives. You had the trucker convoy in Ottawa. And I think that changed the whole dynamic. (1:04:18 - 1:04:29) And then, you know, Scott Moe in Saskatchewan, first one out of the gates to get rid of lockdowns. He was starting to hear more from anti-lockdown people and he said, okay, enough, we're done. Yes. (1:04:30 - 1:04:52) And actually went and did a press release where he said, we're not doing it anymore because it doesn't work. Well, we've got, in some of the Saskatchewan cases, we'll have to, we look forward to hopefully cross-examining the chief medical officer who says it's all based on science, but apparently it's based on how many phone calls the premier's office and the MLAs are getting. It's not science. (1:04:53 - 1:05:07) I mean, the only, the only science that was ever at play was political science. Right. Now I know that Michael Alexander, who represented Dr. Mark Trozzi and his case against the CPSO, and I, you and I have discussed this and I know that you have some differences of opinion on how that case should have been conducted. (1:05:07 - 1:05:23) But unfortunately, recently the court of appeals in Ontario ruled against Dr. Trozzi, upheld the CPSO's decision to withdraw his license. And Michael, I think being very demoralized by this, said the courts are not the answer. We are not going to solve this in the courts. (1:05:24 - 1:05:41) What do you think of that? Substantively, to a large extent, I agree with that, look, the courts are, they're a tool in the toolkit, right? Let's say you have a construction project. You've got a toolkit. There's a whole bunch of different tools in it. (1:05:42 - 1:06:02) And you need more than one tool. The biggest thing that we need to do is, is to ensure that we are only electing people, federally, provincially, municipally school board who love truth and justice and freedom, and who are committed to the free society. They're committed to the rule of law. (1:06:02 - 1:06:28) They're committed to respecting human dignity by respecting our rights and freedoms. We need to elect better people to protect, to make sure our rights and freedoms don't get violated. We still need the courts there because that's the way our constitution is set up is that when government since 1982, right? Pre-1982, it was, it was different. (1:06:28 - 1:06:41) We didn't have the charter as part of our constitution. But, but since 1982, the courts do play a role in this. So we need to keep on bringing the court actions and, and make them as good as possible. (1:06:42 - 1:06:58) But the courts should be kind of the backup when, if you failed on the democratic front and you've got some prime minister, premier health minister, whatever that's violating rights and freedoms. Okay. You failed already on the first part. (1:06:58 - 1:07:15) Hopefully the courts can be a backup. Can you trust the courts to stand up for your rights and freedoms currently? No, sadly. So it's more important than ever before to elect pro-freedom people to elected office at all levels of government. (1:07:16 - 1:07:31) I think you make a very good point there, John, because let's look at what's happened in the last few years. The courts had been ruling against our rights and freedoms because that was the government narrative. And if we replace that government with one that says, no, we're going to respect the rights of the people, then hopefully the courts are going to follow suit. (1:07:32 - 1:08:02) Well, and it won't need to even go to court, right? Because if, if the government, you know, let's say there's another pandemic that comes along and the government says, well, you know, our efforts are going to consist of encouraging people who are not going to be harmed by the virus to mix and mingle. And, you know, we're going to impose strict, very strict protection on nursing homes, long-term care facilities, which lockdowns did not do. I mean, 80% of COVID deaths were in nursing homes. (1:08:02 - 1:08:08) Lockdowns failed to protect the people that needed the protection. Anyway. In fact, it did the exact opposite. (1:08:09 - 1:08:39) There's great deal of data to show that that was putting all these people together, all these vulnerable people together in the same place that actually resulted in a spike in deaths in the elderly and the vulnerable. That too. But if, if, if we have another, you know, virus, a government can take a different approach and there won't be a need to take the government to court because the government's implementing policies that do not violate our freedoms of conscience, religion, travel, mobility, expression, association, peaceful assembly, bodily autonomy. (1:08:39 - 1:08:48) So if those rights and freedoms are not being violated, then we don't, we don't need to go to court. Yes. Now, final question. (1:08:48 - 1:08:57) You're not just a lawyer. You also have past experience in politics. Are you hopeful that our country will turn around? In the long run? Yes. (1:08:57 - 1:09:09) I think things might need to get worse before they get better to wake up more people. There are more awake Canadians now than in 2019. I think you're one of them. (1:09:09 - 1:09:23) I think you've told me pre, pre 2020, pre 2020. I had no idea. And you weren't, you may have heard the news every now and then, but you were not going to really, you didn't think too much about your freedoms of conscience, religion, expression. (1:09:23 - 1:09:31) So I freely admit, I was in that group of people who assume that our government, while occasionally corrupt. Largely occasionally stupid. Occasionally stupid. (1:09:31 - 1:09:34) Occasionally corrupt. Largely had our best interests. Largely. (1:09:34 - 1:09:38) Yes. Yeah. And of course we've discovered in the last few years, no, they absolutely do not. (1:09:39 - 1:09:44) I absolutely agree. Yeah. So we have, we have more, so I'm optimistic on that side. (1:09:44 - 1:10:04) We have more awake Canadians who are educated about their rights and freedoms than we did five years ago in, you know, five or six years ago in 2019. So in a certain way we are in better shape. And I think the next wave of violations of rights and freedoms, there's going to be much stronger resistance. (1:10:05 - 1:10:38) Even myself, my full-time job is defending charter rights and freedoms. When lockdowns were imposed in March, it took me like two months before, I mean, I started to slowly, I wasn't opposed to two weeks to flatten the curve, but then when the lockdown, when it got prolonged, it wasn't two weeks, it became two months. And then when I saw the governments were not keeping track of lockdown harms at all, as required by the constitution, you're supposed to weigh and measure lockdown harms, lockdown benefits. (1:10:38 - 1:10:44) They were not doing that. They were saying lockdowns are fantastic. We already know we're saving thousands of lives. (1:10:44 - 1:10:50) We don't need evidence for that because we already know. We know that lockdowns are just a minor inconvenience. We don't need to resource that. (1:10:50 - 1:11:04) We already know. It's like, okay, but you know, it took me two months to, to come around and say, okay. And the justice center was the only civil liberties organization in Canada that called for an end to lockdowns. (1:11:04 - 1:11:41) We did so in May of 2020, but the next time you've got this violation of charter rights and freedoms, there's going to be a lot more resistance, a lot more quickly, very early on thinking, no, no, no, no. We're not complying because we saw what happened with false claims made about COVID-19 and false claims made about so many things, COVID deaths and, and the PCR testing and lockdowns and so on. So the book is Corrupted by Fear, which I have to say, I think is one of the best titles for a COVID book I've heard yet. (1:11:42 - 1:12:07) It really summarizes the whole problem. When is the book available for purchase, January 15th on Amazon, $24.95 for the paperback and I think $9.95 for the Kindle ebook version. And you can pre-order, if you've seen this before January 15th, you can pre-order the Kindle now and it'll be added to your ebook library on January 15th. (1:12:08 - 1:12:18) And then the paperback, you know, the hard copy is, can be purchased on the 15th of January.